> And that's where we disagree. Morality is not determined by the
> motivations as much as by the effects.

You keep mentioning Christians and using the word "us". But this statement
alone indicates your lack of understanding of Christian morality. According
to Christ himself ,it is the thought alone that is sinful, even if the
thought is not acted upon.

But Pim, be honest with yourself, and take the atheists morality
consistently. Try to imagine a world that religion never existed. If
religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is an illusion, if they
never existed in the world what would the world look like? This is the way
Dawkins thinks he wants it. He wants a new enlightened humanity that has
moved beyond such infantile thinking. But, he is saying this is a world of
humans that are, and have always been inherently religious. Religion of
some form, exists in all cultures, it has been with us since we have been
human. Any historical or cultural ethical system, has at some point, a
religious influence. So if there is any semblance of religious ideas left
in Dawkins ethics, he is not being consistent. This could include
fundamental things, like the concept of a person, rights of individuals,
sanctity of life, and even less fundamental things, like the concept of
judges, right to a fair trial etc.

Call this the presuppositional argument of ethics if you want. What Dawkins
doesn't realize, and apparently you don't either, is that without certain
religious concepts as fundamental ideas, the structure of ethical thought
would be unrecognizable to us today, and most likely abhorrent to all of us.
The cost of not having God as the foundation of our morals, is much much
greater than the cost of God as the author of morality.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 29 07:02:10 2008